tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News October 6, 2013 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
>> they're going to have a slightly funny wedding video than most couples. that's it for this edition of "media buzz." i'm howard kurtz. like us on facebook, continue the conversation online, and we are back here next sunday morning, 11:00 eastern with more "buzz." i'm chris wallace. two top-secret raids target terrorists including one wanted by the u.s. for more than a decade. >> the numbers of al qaeda and other terrorist organizations literally can run, but they can't hide. >> in somalia, american forces go after those responsible for the recent mall attack in nairobi. in libya, they capture an al qaeda leader linked to the 1998 embassy bombings in east africa. we'll have a live report. plus, as the partial government shutdown drags on, do there's another financial crisis on the horizon. >> this isn't some damn game.
the american people don't want their government shut down, and neither do i. >> for as reckless as a government shutdown is, an economic shutdown that comes with default with america not paying its bills would be dramatically worse. >> we'll discuss what's at stake in the shutdown and the looming battle over raising the nation's debt limit with treasury secretary jack lew. then, republicans debate the way out of the standoff. we'll talk with tom graves of georgia who's leading the charge against obama care. and pete king of new york who says the right wing has hijacked the gop. plus, our sunday panel with new fox contributor george will, debates which side will blink first. and our "power play of the week." >> we would like to say we' lar world. >> the first woman to head the military's justice system all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. we start with those u.s.
commando raids in north africa. navy s.e.a.l.s hit a seaside villa in somalia going after a leader of al shabaab, the group behind that recent mall massacre in nairobi. meanwhile in libya, american forces ended a 15-year manhunt for an al qaeda operative linked to the bombings of u.s. embassies back in 1998. national security correspondent jennifer griffin has more on these daring operations. jennifer. >> chris, the libyan government was not told about u.s. plans to carry out this commando raid, and now they are demanding answers. u.s. officials confirmed the president signed off on these two operations at the end of september. navy s.e.a.l.s came ashore in somalia in the predawn hours saturday to target a villa south of mogadishu where top leaders of the al qaeda affiliate al shabaab were gathered. shortly thereafter in the capital of libya, elite special operations forces surrounded the vehicle of this man, abu al libi, a top al qaeda operative
who has been indicted in the southern districts of new york, wanted by the u.s. government for more than a decade for his role in the east africa bombings. his family says al libi had just pulled up to his house after morning prayers when he was nabbed by the u.s. forces. pentagon press secretary george little issued the following statement. "as the results of a u.s. counterterrorism operation, al liby is currently lawfully detained by the u.s. military in a secure location outside of libya." it is not clear whether the target of the s.e.a.l. operation in somalia, the mastermind of the kenya mall attack, was killed. a firefight broke out. at one somali was killed, but the s.e.a.l.s could not retrieve the body to make a positive identification. liby is alleged to have done surveillance on the embassies before the bombing. he hid in britain and iran after 1998 and returned to libya in 2011 during the uprising against moammar gadhafi. an fbi hostage rescue team with
prosecutorial authorities was embedded with the u.s. forces who carried out this attack. u.s. officials confirm al liby will be tried in the united states and will not be sent to guantanamo bay, chris. >> jennifer, thank you. now to the partial government shutdown. day six and the clock is ticking toward another deadline. congress must raise the debt ceiling in less than two weeks, or for the first time in our history, the country goes into default. joining me now, the secretary of the treasury, jack lew. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> good to be with you. >> this week both you and the president seemed to be trying to panic the markets about both raising the debt ceiling and the government shutdown, saying that they should be more concerned. here's the president. >> i think this time's different. i think they should be concerned. when you have a situation in which a faction is willing potentially to default on u.s. government obligations, then we
are in trouble. >> but so far the markets are shrugging it off. the dow jones dropped just 1.2% this week. nasdaq was actually up more than 0.5%. aren't your efforts failing to try to use the markets to put pressure on republicans to cave? >> you know, chris, it's my job to try to make sure we strengthen the economy, and i spend every day trying to do that. that's why it's so important for congress to act, to open up the government to make sure we can pay our bills. there's no question that if we were to have the unthinkable happen and have the united states default, it would cause real problems. the only question is how serious the problems would be, and there's a kind of range of how bad the consequences are, but why would anybody want to do that to the economy at a time when the american people are showing resilience, recovering from the worst recession since the great depression? and this is not a new issue. i'm going to quote to you from something president reagan wrote to congress or said to the country back in 1983. the full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of the default by the
united states are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. denigration of the full faith and credit of the united states would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar and exchange markets. that was president reagan. >> let me quote you to you because the treasury department issued a report late this week that said a possible default would be, quote, catastrophic. here's what your own treasury department report said. credit markets could freeze. the value of the dollar could plummet. u.s. interest rates could skyrocket. and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse. on the other hand, the fed continues to pump money into the economy. given that, what's the likelihood that a default would be catastrophic? >> look, chris, the good news is there's a majority in congress that's ready to do the right thing. that's ready to vote -- >> i'm asking you an economic question, not a political question. >> and that's ready to avoid the unthinkable problems that the united states for the first time
since 1789 willfully defaults on the full faith and credit of the united states. i don't think there's serious people who think the consequence is minimal. i mean, people say you can pay some bills and not other bills, but let me ask you a question, chris. if you pay one bill, let's just say you pay interest and principal on the debt. what happens if you don't pay millions of people on social security? what happens if you don't pay hospitals and health care providers across the country? the consequences are immediate, and they're very bad. congress needs to act. >> i asked you an economic question. would it be catastrophic? >> chris, i -- i am telling you that i know the direction. i know the direction is bad. there are a range of how bad. it is not responsible -- it is irresponsible, and it is reckless to take that chance, which is why congress needs to act. it's only congress that can act to raise the debt limit. it's congress's authority and responsibility. >> all right. you say that consequences would be bad. it would be irresponsible not to act. despite these stakes, the president -- the president refuses to negotiate saying what
republicans are demanding has never happened before. take a look. >> you have never seen in the history of the united states the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt ceiling being used to extort a president or a governing party and trying to force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and have nothing to do with the debt. >> mr. secretary, that is just not true. congress has voted to raise the debt ceiling 53 times since 1978, more than half, 27 times, it's been linked to something else. and among those items it's been linked to, campaign finance reform, school prayer, and busing, and a nuclear freeze. what's unprecedented is not congress tying strings. what's unprecedented is the president refusing to negotiate. >> you know, chris, let me be
clear. the president has always been looking for a way to negotiate, find that reasonable middle ground with a bipartisan, you know, group of members and senators to do the right thing for the american people. he was. he put out a budget that actually took an enormous step to do that. so the president is open to negotiation. the question about the debt limit is different. and frankly, i think your history is wrong. if you look at the cases where the debt limit was involved, there were many other things attached to the debt limit. but the question of threatening to cause a default of the united states, not until 2011 did it become a positive agenda -- >> with all due respect, your history is wrong. in 1973, democrats in the senate including ted kennedy and walter mondale wanted to attach campaign finance reform under richard nixon during watergate to raising the debt limit. it ended up being a filibuster. republicans had to filibuster to defeat it and take it out. this has happened over and over again. and presidents have negotiated. and this president, what'sceden
to negotiate. >> chris, i lived through the budget debates of the 1980s, the 1990 aid 0s, the early 2000s. i actually remember when the debt limit was used as a deadline, an action-forcing event. it was different in 2011. in 2011 you had 50 to 100 members of the house who said if we don't get our way, we'd rather see the default of the united states, and that was different. it was different. and i think what the president is saying is congress has to do its job. it has to open the government. it has to make it -- we need to negotiate. >> so why not sit down with him and talk? you're the one who is saying that they're ready to take the economy down. they say they don't want to take the economy down. you agree, in 1997, you were deputy director of omb when the debt limit was tied to measures to balance the budget. if it was good enough for bill clinton to sit down and negotiate with the house
speaker, why isn't it good enough for barack obama? >> chris, in 1997 i sat through every meeting in the balanced budget negotiations. no one once raised the issue of threatening the default. >> neither has john boehner. >> john boehner -- i know john boehner. we have a good relationship. i've talked to john boehner. i know he doesn't want to default. he also didn't want the government shutdown. and here we are. there is a majority many congress that would vote to do the right thing. it needs to be given the chance. >> look, first of all, john boehner is not threatening to default. he's saying he doesn't want to default. republicans are talking right now about a down payment on the debt. they're willing to ease the sequester automatic spending cuts in return for long-term spending cuts through entitlement reform. will the president negotiate on that as part of the deal to deal with the debt limit and the shutdown? >> chris, we need to separate the issues. >> why? why? it hasn't been separated in years. >> coming res needs to open the government. we're now going into the second week.
it's causing damage to the american people. every day people who thought it was okay, every day they're discovering why it's a problem. you can't fix this by discovering a problem here and there. congress needs to do its job. . >> you're saying the president refused to negotiate over a debt solution. >> chris, it's solely congress's job to pass a budget. they have to pass a budget. >> are you saying the president is refusing to negotiate, sir? >> i'm saying the president wants to negotiate. he wants to negotiate -- >> negotiate on the debt limit? >> chris, we need -- congress needs to do its job, and then we need to negotiate. the president has taken many steps over the last several years to show his willingness to negotiate. he's done it with democrats saying he's too eager to negotiate. now, republicans have not come forward and made comparable movement. if we were in a place a year ago or two years ago where everything was on the table, where entitlement reform and tax reform were equally on the table as part of the solution, we wouldn't be where we are now. we came forward. we were willing to do entitlement reform. the republicans need to come forward as well.
>> you were saying the possible results would be so -- in the words of your report catastrophic, will the president accept a short-term extension to fund the government and raise the debt limit so you can have talks about the debt? >> congress will have to make a decision what they do. the american economy would be well served by getting some stability and some certainty. these manufactured crises that -- and this brinksmanship over and over again is bad for the economy. it's hurt -- we're the world leader. we are the strongest, deepest economy in the world. our currency is the world's reserve currency. since 1789, people have fedepend on the united states for that stability. congress should act now. i think they should act to take this burden off of the economy. it's a self-inflicted wound. but we'll have to see what congress does. >> i take away from this conversation that even though republicans are willing to talk about a debt deal, or a short-term ex-paentensionextens president who is digging his feet into the ground and saying no negotiations in. >> chris, that is not what i said. >> what are you saying?
unconditional surrender and nothing else, sir. >> we've just spent the last several months with congress creating this ridiculous choice where either you repeal the affordable care act or you shut down the government or default on the united states. that is not the way we should do business. we need to -- they need to do their job. they need to open the government. they need to fund our ability to pay our bills. these are old bills. these aren't new bills. >> i understand that, sir. >> we are open to negotiation. the president has been, is and will always be open to reasonable discussion. >> i want to ask you about obama care. you brought it up. that's what a lot of this is about. the public exchanges in obama care opened this week. and i think it's fair to say that the government website was a mess. in fact, and you can look at it right here, the page to sign up, to enroll for obama care, has been taken down for repairs during off-peak hours this weekend. question, sir. you have had three years to prepare for this week. if i already had doubt, somebody already had doubts about the government's ability to oversee
one-sixth of the economy, shouldn't this just add to my doubts? >> you know, chris, i actually think that is not what's happened this week. what happened this week is we saw 7 million people rush to go onto the web page to find out what are they choices in this new marketplace to buy affordable health care? >> how many signed, sir? >> they have six months to sign up. this is a big decision. >> how many signed up? >> i don't have the exact number, but the question -- >> do you have any number? because the government has refused to tell us how many. >> it's the wrong question. >> no, it isn't. it's in the end looking -- i can look and i may have no interest and i may have no need for obama care. the question is how many people signed up? >> we know people take time to make important decisions like this. they go on and compare their options. the fact that so many people rushed to get information is no surprise. and your question about the website, i don't know about you, but i sign on and i get updates on my software. and i often get corrections that i have to read -- re-up date my software. from major companies. it is not unique that when you
have a very large new software program come out, that people work to clean it up. i usually wait till it's 0.3 or 0.4 to sign up. that shows how much interest there is in getting health care. >> i'm going to ask one last time. do you not know how many people have signed up which would seem to indicate another software glitch or is it that the number is embarrassingly small? >> chris, our metric for this week was could people get online, get the information they need to make an informed decision. they have been getting that information. we are confident that they're going to make the decision as we say, they have six months to make the decision. >> so you don't -- do you not know, or is it that the number is low? >> it's obviously not my primary area of responsibility. my knowing or not knowing is not going to be indicative. >> nobody in government has told you. >> the important issue -- the important issue here is that millions of americans want to get affordable health care.
they came online. they're getting the information. and you know what they're learning? they're learning they can get affordable health care. they can save money. they can avoid having a situation where they have preexisting conditions but no health care, where they have children who have no health care. this is a very important development. >> they just can't sign up for it. >> well, i think they are going to be signing up. >> technically they can't. secretary lew, thanks for coming in today. we'll stay on top of all this, the shutdown, the default and the problems with obama care. thank you very much, sir. >> great to be with you, chris. with no negotiations at this point between the white house and congressional republicans, where is the government headed? george will joins our sunday group for the sunday group, and we'll ask them next. butting he between the republicans and he democrats, where is the group
so i can reach ally bank 24/7, but there are no branches? 24/7. i'm sorry, i'm just really reluctant to try new things. really? what's wrong with trying new things? look! mommy's new vacuum! (cat screech) you feel that in your muscles? i do... drink water. it's a long story. well, not having branches let's us give you great rates and service. i'd like that. a new way to bank. a better way to save. ally bank. your money needs an ally.
customer erin swenson ordebut they didn't fit.line customer's not happy, i'm not happy. sales go down, i'm not happy. merch comes back, i'm not happy. use ups. they make returns easy. unhappy customer becomes happy customer. then, repeat customer. easy returns, i'm happy. repeat customers, i'm happy. sales go up, i'm happy. i ordered another pair. i'm happy. (both) i'm happy. i'm happy. happy. happy. happy. happy. happy happy. i love logistics.
will the president negotiate on that as part of a deal to deal with the debt limit and the shutdown? >> chris, we need to separate the issues. >> why? why? it hasn't been separated for years? >> congress needs to open the government. we're now going into the second week of a government shutdown. it's causing real damage to the american people. >> treasury secretary jack lew earlier this morning on the president's refusal to negotiate with the republicans. and it's time now for our sunday group. joining us for the first time, syndicated columnist and pulitzer prize winner george will. he's now a fox news contributor. george, we're honored to have you on the panel. welcome. >> thank you. glad to be here. >> we're not quite as honored, but very excited to have kirsten powers of the daily beast website, karl rove and democratic strategist joe trippi. i'm just kidding. >> never miss a chance. >> really. >> it was not just you
personally. >> no, it was all three of us. >> all three of us, yes. >> george, as we pointed out with secretary lew, this claim that presidents have never negotiated with congress over raising the debt limit is nonsense. it's happened over and over again, as we said, 27 times since 1979. do you think that the president can stick to this refusal to negotiate, or does that at some point become politically unsustainable? >> here's the position he would be sticking to. default would be catastrophic. worldwide depression, political chaos, locusts, plagues, et cetera. but attached to the debt ceiling increase, construction of the keystone pipeline, it's better to have locusts, plagues, crisis and war. and an untenable position. but what makes the debt ceiling this recurring crisis so wholesome is it forces us to move in front the gap between revenues and outlays, and everything you need to know about what's wrong with contemporary washington was in
your interview when the secretary said we won't prioritize. a hardware star in kankakee, illinois, prioritizes between what to do with its first revenues that come in. we have ten times more revenues than required to service our debt. that can be done. there's no neat to default. therefore, the administration's position on default will be our choice. >> kirsten, one senior administration official infam s infamously said to "the wall street journal" on friday, quote, we're winning so we don't care how long this goes on. the president quickly took that back, as he was going out for lunch, impromptu at a sandwich shop near the white house. but do democrats run the risk of overplaying their hand if they continue to refuse to negotiate, or if they continue to refuse to pass these bills that the house is passing, piecemeal measures to findund nih or head start? >> well, i think that they can't -- if they allow this to
happen, if they do this piecemeal bills, for example, i think the fear is that this will keep on happening. and that's why the president has taken such a hard line. and the refusal to negotiate, we need to remember what he's refusing to negotiate over. he's refusing to negotiate over the funding obama care. this is a pretty significant thing. and so you can go through your history of the different things that people have done. you know, democrats holding up reagan's budget over defense spending, that's not quite the same thing as actually defunding an entire program, an entire signature program of the president. >> but they backed off it. now they're talking just repealing the part of medical devices. >> look, maybe the president would come around on something like that. if they had done that in the first place, they probably could have gotten to a deal. i think it's gotten to the point now where they took it all the way up to the brink on, you know, default, yes. i think -- i've said this before -- i think the president's position is a negotiating position. it's where he's starting and perhaps it will be something where they can reach some sort
of agreement. he does not want us to default, there's no question. and i don't think, frankly, most republican leaders want us to default either. >> karl, with six days into this shutdown, where do you assess both sides are now, and what are the end games for both sides? how's this get settled? >> well, both sides are suffering in the public estimation. if washington is not work,ing, republicans did as they did in the '95 shutdown will get more of the blame than the white house. let's not kid ourselves, the president is doing himself some damage as well as the republicans. it has a purpose which is to try and get the congress to agree to the senate democrats' spending number which is $91 billion bigger than the house and bust the sequester and ends the 2011 spending agreement. and the other part of this is is that he is attempting to put the responsibility for raising the debt ceiling and, in fact, naming the amount of the debt ceiling on the congress and not on himself. the president, through this
whole thing, has said we need to raise the debt ceiling, but he's never once said how much. every other president has said here's how much i'd like to raise it for and here's how long this will be. the reap is budget experts inside and outside tell me in order to get the government past the 2014 election, it's going to be a trillion dollar debt ceiling increase. he doesn't want to be the guy who goes out and says after all this happy talk about spending and deficits, that he needs $1 trillion more in authority to get himself through the next year. >> it is interesting to note that back in 2008 candidate obama said that george w. bush's $9 trillion debt was unpatriotic. if they raise the debt $1 trillion, it will be to $17.7 trillion which i guess would be treasonous. >> also he said any president who asks for an increase in the debt ceiling is demonstrating a failure in leadership. when he was attempting to use the debt ceiling to in essence have the default. you'd think a guy that made such a gross error would have a little humility now and sit down
and negotiate. that's why i think the strub born obstructionism has a purpose. >> so joe, with all the stubborn obstructionism on the democratic side? >> oh, yeah, yeah, right. look, the whole problem with this is i think goes back to the 41 votes to repeal obama care. the republicans have had an obsession with repealing it. we've been element within the republican party. we're not seeing that. that's how the shutdown crisis starts with them wanting to shut down do defund obama care, repeal it, get rid of it. that's why it's so hard for them now to say they weren't responsible for shutting down the government. and the real problem as we get closer to a default is regardless of what negotiations there are or are not, it's going to be -- in the wake of all that momentum on obama care, on republicans trying to stop it, they could turn into the grand o.o. party, obstruction and obsession with obama care, and that leads to fiscal default.
>> sounds like a bumper sticker. george, i want to bring you in. we've got a little time left. there's been talk that the president and senate democrats, that their goal is to break the republican party to exploit this divide within the republicans and to make them -- to stop them, basically, to school them, not to use these fiscal deadlines as leverage. is that a sensible strategy? >> it's not sensible because they misunderstand the evidence right before their eyes of what's happening with the evolving republican party. there are two groups desperate to end the shutdown and to break the sequester. one is big business, and the other is the american military. previously the republican party was thought to be congruent with big business and the military. not anymore. >> all right. we have to take a break here, but you bring us to the division within the republican party as the -- and we'll pick up with this discussion a little bit later. first, as the shutdown drags on, there's a growing split inside the gop. what effect will that have on the washington showdown?
and the doors even handle the checkout so we can work on that thing that's stuck in the thing. [ female announcer ] today, cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everyone goes home happy. the deadlock over government funding and raising the debt limit has exposed not only the split between republicans and democrats but also a bitter divide inside the gop. and that internal battle may determine how the standoff ends. joining me here in washington, georgia congressman tom graves who is demanding changes in obama care as part of any deal. and in new york, congressman pete king who says some republicans are now looking for a way out of the shutdown. before we get to the shutdown discussion, congressman king, as a member of the house intel and the house homeland security committee, i want to ask you about these two raids yesterday, commando raids inside africa, one in tripoli, one in somalia.
two questions. first, did we tell the al shabaab leader we were targeting in somalia, and secondly, should the al qaeda operative that we caught in tripoli, should he be tried in civilian court in new york where he is currently under indictment? >> chris, i can't comment on whether or not we captured the al shabaab leader in somalia. having said that, it was a daring raid. i give our special forces, special operators, tremendous credit. i think we have to, after it is over, find out did al shabaab have advanced notice we were coming. obviously there was heavy resistance when we got there. as far as libya, al liby has been wanted for 15 years. i wish he was being tried in guantanamo rather than new york. i also raise the question, though, why if we were able to get al liby, we didn't get the operatives from benghazi who we know where they are and they've been almost open and knnotoriou. that's been a real issue by a number of us in the congress,
why we don't go after those. al liby is a great capture and i give our navy s.e.a.l.s and special forces and operatives tremendous credit. i hope he's interrogated for a long time before he's brought to court. >> let's turn, if we can, to the other subject at hand which, of course, is the government shutdown, possible default. congressman king, you've said some pretty rough thing pz your fellow republicans who have been pushing this default. you have called them yahoos, ted cruz crazies, even terrorists. with tom graves sitting here, it sounds like it's more than just a disagreement over policy. >> no, i'm talking primarily about ted cruz here who basically was saying that if we defunded obama care, he could manage to both keep the government open and defund obama. the fact is, was done in the house and the government is closed and obama care is going forward. this was a strategy that never could have worked. it was almost sort of a nullification to say we're going
to shut down the government if we don't defund a law that we don't like. i mean, if we wanted to defund something, we should repeal it, and we do is the same way the president got it signed. republicans to vote both houses of congress, repel it and have a republican president sign it. at this rate, this was a strategy doomed to failure. and ted cruz has now walked away from it. now he's saying we should negotiate on the debt limit which is what we should have been doing for the last month. that's why the strategy was doomed to failure. >> let me bring congressman graves into this. you have been one of the people leading the charge to defund or delay obama care. first, how do you feel, whether it was from congressman king or congressman nunez being called a terrorist, a lemming wearing a suicide vest? and what is it that so-called moderates liking and nunez don't get? >> well, first let me just say, we as a conference, we're united. we have been working together now over the last couple of weeks. there may be disagreements on strategy or tactics, but we are fully united behind opening the government up as quickly as we can as well as providing fairness to all of americans as
it relates to obama care. and we've been pretty reasonable as we've worked through this process. i've heard the reference to a full delay or a full repeal. that was something i was for. a full defund. likewise, a one-year delay of the entire program to now just saying, mr. president, can we not just have one-year delay of the individual mandate and provide the same protections to all of america that you've provided to big business? >> but you say you're united. there have fellow republicans who have called you terrorists. >> that has relation to tactics and strategy. we're united from protecting americans from the harmful effects of obama care and keeping the government open and the votes demonstrate that. >> let's talk about how flexible you are. there is now some talk among house republican leaders to pivot away from obama care, not to make demands about obama care but instead to focus on the debt. and entitlement reform and long-term spending cuts. would you accept a deal on that to reopen the government and to raise the debt limit if it did
not include any changes to obama care? >> i don't suspect that's something the conference would embrace right now. we have had a tremendous fight over keeping the government open and protecting americans from obama care. but i'm here to say i'm open to a lot of different ideas. i'm willing to put it all on the table. let's have a conversation about tax reform, about debt limit, about funding the government, about obama care. but in order to do that, harry reid has to send some democrats to meet with us. he can't be scared to send democrats to meet with republicans to have this conversation. >> you just heard jack lew, the secretary of the treasury, talking about how catastrophic it would be if we were to default. are you prepared -- are you prepared to refuse to raise the debt limit unless you get what you want on obama care? >> there's no reason to default. in fact, the republicans don't want to default. we passed a bill with the full faith and credit -- >> i'm going to do what i did with secretary lew. you're not answering my question. >> i'm just saying there's no reason to default. the president is the only one demanding default right now. he could sign the full faith and credit act that we've passed out
of the house that would prioritize the spending. and i think you've pointed out rightly that there's a lot of revenue coming into the government. they forget to tell you about the $200 billion collected every month by the irs. taxes are still being collected. there's still plenty of revenue. >> but would you refuse to raise the debtcare? >> right now we're talking about obama care with regard to opening the government. we have 95% of all this we agree on. let's get that taken care of and then let's talk about the other 5%. >> congressman king, democrats are now pushing a discharge petition to take this idea of a clean cr out of committee to bring it to the house floor for a vote. there are 200 democrats who have agreed to sign that, but they're going to need at least 17 republicans in the house. will you support a discharge petition? >> no. let me first tell you, i don't consider myself a moderate. i'm a reagan conservative. having said that, i would not. and by the way, one thing that tom graves and i can agree on is
that the democrats are, in my mind, are also being responsible here. the president of the united states has an obligation to get involved. he's the head of the democratic party. he's done a very good job at that. i can't picture a harry truman or lyndon johnson or bill clinton or john kennedy standing on the sidelines while this is going on. he has an obligation to get involved whether he calls negotiations or whatever else. the fact is, if this situation is as serious as he says it is, and i think it is as far as default on the debt, that he has an absolute obligation as president of the united states to get involved. >> sir, if you could answer my direct question, though, why won't you sign a discharge petition? >> it's not going to go anywhere. and democrats are not bargaining in good faith. there's no way in the world you're going to get 25 republicans to go on that. and having said that, i wouldn't go on it because they are, as i say, not bargaining in good faith here right now. i am committed to making this work. that's why i've been against this government shutdown from the start. and i'm gdisagreeing with tom,
charles krauthammer called it a suicide caucus. "the wall street journal" said they were kamikazes. you don't take the dramatic step of shutting down the government unless you have a real strategy and has a chance of working. it's never had a chance of working. now pushing obama care to the side and we're talking about other issues and people are still out of work and the government is still shut down. >> congressman graves, suicide caucus, kamikazes? >> still, as he indicated, we are unified behind the fairness, providing fairness and keeping the government open. >> it's the strategy at this point that's shut down the government. >> the reality is we are where we are right now. and as a conference we've never been more united than what we have seen particularly last friday. we know that the president, what, his chief aides in the administration are saying let it go. they don't care how long it goes on because they're winning. this is not about who's going to win or lose because it's the american people ultimately losing if we don't reach some sort of agreement. you've got to have democrats willing to have a conversation. >> congressman graves, one final area i want to get into with, if house speaker boehner agrees to
reopen the government or raise the debt ceiling without a deal that limits obama care, would you vote to remove him as speaker? >> there's no vote to remove him as speaker. i mean, the next vote for speaker is in january, i guess, of, what, 2015. >> you could have a vote on the house floor. >> what we're looking for right now, this is clear, chris, we want to open up all the government we can but we want to provide fairness for the american people. and that is providing them the same protections that the government has provided, big business, insurance companies and members of congress. there should be no special treatment and all of americans deserve that same fairness. >> briefly, congressman king, less than a minute, congressman graves is not saying it, but there certainly are some members who have threatened, if boehner gives on this, he's gone. >> i am absolutely committed to john boehner. i think he's an outstanding speaker doing the best he can under a terrible situation. he warned us a month ago that if we shut down the government because of defunding obama care, it was a no-win policy. john had to do it ultimately to
keep the party together so we can have a chance of getting into negotiations. but i'm absolutely committed to john boehner as being the speaker. he's done an outstanding job, considering what he's up against. he really has different factions within the conference and nobody could do a better job. as tough as it is and people have different opinions. obviously i've had disagreements but never his ability to be the press secretary. >> congressmen, thank you both. thanks for coming in and we'll be following the action in the house, gentlemen. thank you. when we return, our panel is back to talk about what happens after this deadlock is resolved. will congress be able to do any work next year, and what about the 2014 election? in. will congress be able noto any work next year, and what about the 2016 elections? up in alaska, we find the best, sweetest crab for red lobster that we can find. if i wouldn't put it on my table at home, i wouldn'bring it in. [ male announcer ] hurry in o crabfest at red lobster, the only time you can savor three hearty alaskan cb entrées all under $20.
this crisis could be over in hours if the speaker and the republicans would just take yes for an answer instead of continuing to be the party of no. >> apparently they think the government shutdown is good politics and they're in no hurry to break the stalemate. >> leaders of both parties continuing to talk at each other while they fail to talk with each other. we're back with the panel. relations between the two parties were pretty miserable before the standoff. and after this, all the splits we're seeing in the party, between the parties, george, does any business get done over the next year? >> i don't see immigration. it's become common that you can't get anything done in an election year or before an election which is all the years taken together. the split of the republican party, what else is new? they split in 1912 between president taft and teddy roosevelt. they split in '64 between the
groeld water rig goldwaters and the rockefellers. liberals don't want diversity and thought, and that's what the republicans now have, and it makes them rather interesting. >> kirsten, do you agree with george, nothing on immigration reform, nothing on any of the president's initiatives? >> yeah, unless he can get a new congress. so you're talking next year. >> we're not going to have an election this november. >> the next year, no, i can't imagine anything getting done, and i think what we've -- and i do think you're talking -- we've talked a lot about is the president trying to destroy the republican party? and i think yes, because he has to. because he -- because of this. because nothing will get done unless there is a new congress. and he -- he needs to divide them. it's just basic math that in order for him to get his agenda done. >> you say destroy the party, because i can see brother karl here champing at the bit. what do you mean? >> well, is he trying to divide them, trying to stoke the division?
you know, is the shutdown bad for the republicans? so far yes, it is. is that good for obama? yes, it is. this is just the reality. you know, and i don't know that necessarily there are other politicians who are above this. it's been cast that obama is somehow especially nefarious because he would want to deal with the political reality that he can't get anything done with this congress. what else was -- what else was he expected to do? >> carl? >> there's a majority of republicans in the congress and the u.s. house of representatives of the president's goal and i agree is to destroy the republicans, he's not going to succeed so why try it? i think it's because he's a community organizer. i checked rules for radicals. one acts only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other. and the president has spent the last several months going out and saying the republicans are devils. monday he could have had had an agreement to resolve the shutdown. he could have said you know what? the house republicans have said funded at the current level and delay the individual mandate for a year just like i delayed the corporate mandate and require
congress to withdraw my waiver for congress and make them live under obama care. >> you can argue policy. do you really think that was unreasonable for him with his signature legislative accomplishment to say i'm not going to delay the individual mandate? if you don't have that, you don't have the money to pay for everything else. >> if you delay the corporate mandate, the employer mandate, that requires that every employer as of january 1 of next year provide insurance or pay a $2,000 a person fine, the cbo says that's $12 billion. the individual mandate is roughly $15 billion. so if it's incredibly damaging to obama care to delay the individual mandate, what about delaying it for corporate? now, why did he do the corporate mandate? because he did not want it in an election year a lot of companies doing what they're doing under a mandate. and what they were going to do, companies were going to dump coverage and toss people in the exchanges. and he didn't want that happening in an election year. but yes, it was entirely reasonable. >> wait, wait. now let's -- >> he could have said i'll take the withdrawal of my waiver on congress, but you know, don't
give me that the withdrawal of waiver on congress, but don't give me that one. >> something kirsten said, the president doesn't need to destroy the republican party because it's doing it to itself, so you stand back and let them do it. but there is one point i want to make. look, on obama care, this started in 1945 with truman wanting national health insurance. the democratic party -- >> i knew it was somebody else's fault. to put it in place, for obama to get it there and it was stopped with with clinton. we saw that. we finally get it there. he's not going to think the democrats after 70 years of fighting for this, are going to give up and smau negotiate it away, that's what's crazy about what -- >> this panel is a contact sport. elbow your way in. >> for ul the talking, six republicans who are benefitting from the current unpleasantness.
clinton, new jersey, madison, wisconsin, indianapolis, indiana and columbus, r ohio, they are republican governors christie, jindal, perry, scott walker, mike pence and john casing because they are all going to contemplate running for president and have one great argument on their side. >> let me -- >> on this side, too. >> rick schneider was thinking about it and jeb bush. >> let's talk about 2014. >> carl, there has been some commentary that the president, you say destroyed the parties, but he wants to position republicans, so that democrats can take back the house in 2014. so that he endses his presidency with two years of democratic control the way he began it with two years of democratic control. is that a sensible strategy? >> it has no chance of happening. the president's job approval is
below 50%. the second midterm is always bad for the white house party. he has two chances of taking the house. slim and none and slim is putting the saddle on his horse to ride out of town. i would dynamic, there are less than 65 seats that most of these prognosticators think that are in play. ten seats truly up for grabs. >> you like numbers. let's put up some numbers on the screen. of the 232 republicans in the house, 215 come from districts mitt romney carried last year. in the senate, republicans need to pick up six seats of the 35 seats up next year. democrats now hold 20, republicans 15. joe, which party has a better chance of gaining control of both houses of congress? republicans taking the senate or democrats taking a house? >> if the republicans are right about obama care and just pass
the cr and let it go and everything they say abt is true, then the democrats are never going to win another election. they'll have a senate, house and 2016, they'll get the presidency. the problem in doing this, they crash the economy and we default, even if they're right, they're going to lose the house in 2014 and may not get the presidency for some time. that's what the stitts really are right now. >> let me ask you about that. if obama care is going to be such a disaster, why not let it play out? >> i agree with half of what joe said. let the american people experience obama care. if it's as bad as conservatives rightly say it is, they will recoil from it. that should be a republican strategy. >> now, the flip side is republicans say democrats are scared of people saying what obama care is because they'll love it so much they'll be democrats. >> theory is they'll become addicted as like a heroin drip
to the subsidies. >> i think they're under underestimating the american people. i think the republicans have to have confidence in is the ability of the american people to say we generally vote for divided government, we want divided government and i think you'll have a united congress against a divided -- >> all right, thank you, panel. see you next week, we'll continue this discussion. up next, our power player of the week. e week.
as long as the army's been as long as the army has been around, there has been someone to advise commanders. now, in the army's 236-year history, it's a woman. here's our power player of the week. >> if a soldier's going to go to airborne school, can he go? if a soldier's in airborne school, do we have to return? >> lieutenant general f will recollect is hard at work this week dealing with the government shutdown. making her the service's top lawyer. >> is it fair to call the corps a giant law firm? >> we would like to say we're the largest in the world. >> she has 10,000 military and civilian lawyers antd paralegals serving under her, advising soldiers on everything from personal matters to big issues. >> we do everything from keeping the lights on to making sure
soldiers who should be prosecuted defended properly. >> and prosecutors who work for their commanders. of course, the big issue now is sexual assault. she thinks those reports, 26,000 service members, were targets of sexual assault last year, are exaggerating. but since the army put a few noex on prosecutions in 2009, she say things are getting better. we have seen 100% increase in prosecution and over 100% increase in discharges for soldiers who were convicted. >> as for efforts to change the law, prosecutors, not commander, decide whether to bring a case to trial. >> this is army business, not lawyer business. this really is about discipline. and so to take away the ability of the commander to try cases degrades the commanders.
>> she joined the corps in 1987 with her husband, chris. also an army lawyer. >> we were promoted on the exact same day. >> and when she became judge advocate general, this that meant she would be her husband's boss. >> the plan was at the end of the summer, we were both going to retire. his theory of that was i'm off planned, so he is now a retired army officer and still a solgs for life. >> but she was excited about putting off her retirement. >> i get to work with commanders committed to doing the honorable thing where they listen to advice based upon moral and ethical and the right thing to do and i think that's pretty neat being a lawyer. >> she served two tours in remark as the staff judge advocate, which means she was the senior legal adviser to ray
odierno. that's all for today. have a great week. fox urgent. ambulance transports and people jumping out of the way at the grand prix in houston. a racing car driven by three-time indy 500 champion sailed into what's called a catch fin and some people could not escape. initially, three cars were entangled. you see it here. that triggered the disaster that then played out in the final lap. franchi's car went airborne. into the stands. at least 13 fans were hurt at this hour. an indycar official was hurt as well, but only three people had to go to t h